Ron Paul for president

[hermannr]

It used to be that way in WA. You voted for whomever you wanted to, (open) primary or general. Now you can only vote by party in teh primary...that was because of a law suit the parties brought against the state quite a few years ago. The parties wanted to control who ended up on the ballot in their names. In WA you can write in anyone, so the courts went along with them. That law suit was back in 2004, or at least the 9th circuit was finished with it in 2004... then the present version on primaries came about in 2005 via I 872.

I prefer an open primary, but I'll play the game and caucus with the Republicians. What you really need to do is get elected as a delegate to the county convention then, from the county, as a delegate to the state convention. As a delegate you get to control that vote, if you are not a delegate, you loose control as soon as the delegate moves to the next level. I did manage to get to the state level one year.

Anyway, I wanted to post a bit of information I read today about some candidates habits....remember..what a candidate does with his campaign funds, will give you a clue as to how he will handle your tax dollars. You do know that a candidate has control of his campaign funds, but they are not "his" to keep...yes???...this was a compare/contrast Perry V. Paul in one town in Iowa.

Perry's personal expenses for one day: $1024... Lodging room and board.

Pauls's personal expenses for the same day, same town in Iowa...$64

Which one do you think will be more careful with your tax dollars?

 

[sudden valley gunner]

It used to be that way in WA. You voted for whomever you wanted to, (open) primary or general. Now you can only vote by party in teh primary...that was because of a law suit the parties brought against the state quite a few years ago. The parties wanted to control who ended up on the ballot in their names. In WA you can write in anyone, so the courts went along with them. That law suit was back in 2004, or at least the 9th circuit was finished with it in 2004... then the present version on primaries came about in 2005 via I 872.

I prefer an open primary, but I'll play the game and caucus with the Republicians. What you really need to do is get elected as a delegate to the county convention then, from the county, as a delegate to the state convention. As a delegate you get to control that vote, if you are not a delegate, you loose control as soon as the delegate moves to the next level. I did manage to get to the state level one year.

Anyway, I wanted to post a bit of information I read today about some candidates habits....remember..what a candidate does with his campaign funds, will give you a clue as to how he will handle your tax dollars. You do know that a candidate has control of his campaign funds, but they are not "his" to keep...yes???...this was a compare/contrast Perry V. Paul in one town in Iowa.

Perry's personal expenses for one day: $1024... Lodging room and board.

Pauls's personal expenses for the same day, same town in Iowa...$64

Which one do you think will be more careful with your tax dollars?

To me it looked like Supreme court ruled in favor of the open primary system and that is what we became, when the previous cases where appealed. Am I missing something? Like I said I am new to voting.
http://www.kitsapsun.com/news/2008/m...state-primary/

 

[rodbender]

Anyway, I wanted to post a bit of information I read today about some candidates habits....remember..what a candidate does with his campaign funds, will give you a clue as to how he will handle your tax dollars. You do know that a candidate has control of his campaign funds, but they are not "his" to keep...yes???...this was a compare/contrast Perry V. Paul in one town in Iowa.

Perry's personal expenses for one day: $1024... Lodging room and board.

Pauls's personal expenses for the same day, same town in Iowa...$64

Which one do you think will be more careful with your tax dollars?

Well now you have to remember; Perry is a sitting governor, and Paul is only a congressman. You wouldn't expect Perry to stay at a Best Western, would you? Geez.

[sarcasm off]

 

[PrayingForWar]

I am registered as an independent. This is primarily because the R party has not had a good conservative R since the 80's.

I look at the candidates history more than what is coming out of their mouth.

I was interested in the Tea Party as a possible way to break the 2 party system that has become nothing more than voting for the lesser of two evils. It is a shame that the Tea Party seems to have backed off.

It is high time for people that are sick of the same old thing to break free and go with the third party. Perhaps if there is a strong enough challenger, they can even get themselves invited to a debate. Seems ever since Ross Perot was able to make the R & D candidates look like buffoons, 3rd Party candidates have been shut out of all debates.

I think that if a strong 3rd Party Candidate would run and people that are sick of the 2 Party hold on the Presidency would not just vote for the lesser of two evils, we may have a chance to get a good President in to office.

I will vote for Ron Paul whether he has a R or I by his name as he has consistently voted on the side of the issues that I think are most important. Is he perfect, nope, but he is a far cry better than all of the current R's and would be a good counter to the current D in office.

If the R's would pay attention to the conservatives instead of sending them to the back of the bus as they court the middle of the road, flavor of the week side, they may have a chance.

As it is, trying to tout Romney as a Republican when he is a conservative democrat at best or trying to say Gingrich is for smaller government is just laughable. I could not vote for either of those two with their history.

I think Ron Paul would be the best candidate to pull this country back on course as he would abide by the Constitution.

I don't think a 3 party system is what we need. The UK and Canada have been run by the %40 who adhere to nanny statist policies because of theirs. Only recently have the adults finally started rolling it back. If we were to fractionalize the republicrat party, the same thing would happen here. What the Tea Party needs to focus on is purging the republicrats out of the party. Like the bolsheviks, their agents and useful idiots did to the democrap party.

The best way for that too happen would be nominating Ron Paul. I would have prefered Herman Cain though.

 

[rscottie]

I don't think a 3 party system is what we need. The UK and Canada have been run by the %40 who adhere to nanny statist policies because of theirs. Only recently have the adults finally started rolling it back. If we were to fractionalize the republicrat party, the same thing would happen here. What the Tea Party needs to focus on is purging the republicrats out of the party. Like the bolsheviks, their agents and useful idiots did to the democrap party.

The best way for that too happen would be nominating Ron Paul. I would have prefered Herman Cain though.

The Republican Party is already fractionated. The Conservatives vs the Rino's.

 

[PrayingForWar]

The Republican Party is already fractionated. The Conservatives vs the Rino's.

True, but the RINOs can GTFO and join their cocktail party elitist pig friends in the democrap party. The country as a whole leans conservative, so ostrasizing them will benefit the party. At one time the democrats were viriulently anti-communist. Now they represent them.

 

[Daylen]

True, but the RINOs can GTFO and join their cocktail party elitist pig friends in the democrap party. The country as a whole leans conservative, so ostrasizing them will benefit the party. At one time the democrats were viriulently anti-communist. Now they represent them.

Well hippi baby boomers had to infiltrate someone, the Democratic position of looking to world governance instead of American power, along with FDR's communist/socialist program probably convinced them that the democrat party was the most dishonest and therefore the best to infiltrate.

 

[DangerClose]

Voter fraud in Maine?

hmmm...

[video=youtube;g3ivrynAFP0]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=g3ivrynAFP0&[/video]

 

[sweetnsauer]

I'm either voting for Ron Paul or I'm not supporting anyone... In fact, I think if he doesn't win the primary I may as well say "Screw this country!", vote for Obama and move to Switzerland. No offense to anyone, but I don't think Rick Perry is "respectable" or "worthy"... he's not even very intelligent. Ron and Rand are about the only two politicians in this entire country that I respect.

Practically every politician, Republican or Democrat (but especially Democrats), is under the impression that they are a God-ordained shepherd of the ignorant masses too stupid to care for themselves -- and that we need them to tell us what to eat, drink, smoke, say, think and do... and we need them to tell us to wear our little seatbelts, insure our cars, insure our home and health and how to wipe. What would we poor lil sheep do without them!? Be much better off... that's what...

If you really believe in individual liberty, small government and free enterprise then you are a libertarian and not a "conservative" (a rather vague, meaningless term which eludes to the preservation of an existing social order). Ron Paul is the ONLY libertarian candidate. Our founding fathers were "libertarians"; though it used to be called "liberalism" back in the old days, and sometimes "classical liberalism" today (yes, the term was hijacked in the 20th century, so the word "liberal" now means socialist in the US). People like Rick Perry call themselves "conservative"... but wth does that mean? It doesn't refer to any logical or consistent political ideology. For instance, Perry says he wants to have a "free market", then turns around and talks about all the super awesome government programs he would do to "save" the economy. He says he believes in "liberty", but then supports the trampling of our rights in the name of "counter-terrorism" and "law enforcement". He, like 99% of other politicians, is just an authoritarian ***** who doesn't know liberty from a hole in the ground. :cuss:

So it's go Ron Paul or go packing for me...

 

[DangerClose]

I'm either voting for Ron Paul or I'm not supporting anyone...

Gary Johnson?

 

[sudden valley gunner]

I'm either voting for Ron Paul or I'm not supporting anyone... In fact, I think if he doesn't win the primary I may as well say "Screw this country!", vote for Obama and move to Switzerland. No offense to anyone, but I don't think Rick Perry is "respectable" or "worthy"... he's not even very intelligent. Ron and Rand are about the only two politicians in this entire country that I respect.

Practically every politician, Republican or Democrat (but especially Democrats), is under the impression that they are a God-ordained shepherd of the ignorant masses too stupid to care for themselves -- and that we need them to tell us what to eat, drink, smoke, say, think and do... and we need them to tell us to wear our little seatbelts, insure our cars, insure our home and health and how to wipe. What would we poor lil sheep do without them!? Be much better off... that's what...

If you really believe in individual liberty, small government and free enterprise then you are a libertarian and not a "conservative" (a rather vague, meaningless term which eludes to the preservation of an existing social order). Ron Paul is the ONLY libertarian candidate. Our founding fathers were "libertarians"; though it used to be called "liberalism" back in the old days, and sometimes "classical liberalism" today (yes, the term was hijacked in the 20th century, so the word "liberal" now means socialist in the US). People like Rick Perry call themselves "conservative"... but wth does that mean? It doesn't refer to any logical or consistent political ideology. For instance, Perry says he wants to have a "free market", then turns around and talks about all the super awesome government programs he would do to "save" the economy. He says he believes in "liberty", but then supports the trampling of our rights in the name of "counter-terrorism" and "law enforcement". He, like 99% of other politicians, is just an authoritarian ***** who doesn't know liberty from a hole in the ground. :cuss:

So it's go Ron Paul or go packing for me...

Welcome to the forum....you'll find many friends here if you keep speaking like that.....

 

[rodbender]

I'm either voting for Ron Paul or I'm not supporting anyone... In fact, I think if he doesn't win the primary I may as well say "Screw this country!", vote for Obama and move to Switzerland. No offense to anyone, but I don't think Rick Perry is "respectable" or "worthy"... he's not even very intelligent. Ron and Rand are about the only two politicians in this entire country that I respect.

Practically every politician, Republican or Democrat (but especially Democrats), is under the impression that they are a God-ordained shepherd of the ignorant masses too stupid to care for themselves -- and that we need them to tell us what to eat, drink, smoke, say, think and do... and we need them to tell us to wear our little seatbelts, insure our cars, insure our home and health and how to wipe. What would we poor lil sheep do without them!? Be much better off... that's what...

If you really believe in individual liberty, small government and free enterprise then you are a libertarian and not a "conservative" (a rather vague, meaningless term which eludes to the preservation of an existing social order). Ron Paul is the ONLY libertarian candidate. Our founding fathers were "libertarians"; though it used to be called "liberalism" back in the old days, and sometimes "classical liberalism" today (yes, the term was hijacked in the 20th century, so the word "liberal" now means socialist in the US). People like Rick Perry call themselves "conservative"... but wth does that mean? It doesn't refer to any logical or consistent political ideology. For instance, Perry says he wants to have a "free market", then turns around and talks about all the super awesome government programs he would do to "save" the economy. He says he believes in "liberty", but then supports the trampling of our rights in the name of "counter-terrorism" and "law enforcement". He, like 99% of other politicians, is just an authoritarian ***** who doesn't know liberty from a hole in the ground. :cuss:

So it's go Ron Paul or go packing for me...

C'mon now. Tell us what you really think. HE...HE...HE

I feel like leaving sometimes myself, but if you really think about it, where ya gonna go?.

 

[XD9mmFMJ]

Voting for Ron Paul won't do you any good. Your leaders are appointed, not elected. Just ask the mason who posted above me, he knows all about it, I'm sure. There's nowhere you can go to get away from the problems. You will either stand and face them, or they will get worse.

Voting is just a way to give you the illusion that your opinion counts. These unites states are an oligarchy with the illusion of democracy in what is supposed to be a constitutional republic. See if you can wrap your head around that one!

 

[XD9mmFMJ]

I don't think a 3 party system is what we need. The UK and Canada have been run by the %40 who adhere to nanny statist policies because of theirs. Only recently have the adults finally started rolling it back. If we were to fractionalize the republicrat party, the same thing would happen here. What the Tea Party needs to focus on is purging the republicrats out of the party. Like the bolsheviks, their agents and useful idiots did to the democrap party.

The best way for that too happen would be nominating Ron Paul. I would have prefered Herman Cain though.

Canada is run by the same people who run the U.S. They are your masters, and they're a bunch of liberal commie scumbags. The two party system, three parties or whatever, is just a system of manipulating the public into thinking they have a choice. It's a game of good cop/bad cop, and they simply swap roles every once in a while, as they continue forging their path to the same goal. I swear people's beliefs in the dog and pony show of politics is like some old lady who believes that soap operas are real, and talking to the television is like talking to her friends. It's all an illusion......you are under a spell. A very powerful spell, and a very persistent illusion, but an illusion none the less.

OH WAIT!!!!!!! SO NOT SUPPOSED TO TELL THE SHEEPLE THESE THINGS. Sorry if I disturbed your slumber!

 

[.40S&W]

At this point in the game I'd pick any of the current candidates over Obozo. I just wish they'd quit bickering and mudslinging and get to the real issue of getting this communist out of office. However, I do understand that politics is politics.

 

[rodbender]

Voting for Ron Paul won't do you any good. Your leaders are appointed, not elected. Just ask the mason who posted above me, he knows all about it, I'm sure. There's nowhere you can go to get away from the problems. You will either stand and face them, or they will get worse.

Voting is just a way to give you the illusion that your opinion counts. These unites states are an oligarchy with the illusion of democracy in what is supposed to be a constitutional republic. See if you can wrap your head around that one!

If we wanted to take control of the entire world (I'm sure that is the theory you are alluding to) we could have done it already, no sweat. Put your tin foil hat away.

 

[MilProGuy]

I'm either voting for Ron Paul or I'm not supporting anyone...

In fact, I think if he doesn't win the primary I may as well say "Screw this country!", vote for Obama and move to Switzerland.


So it's go Ron Paul or go packing for me...

Kinda' like Patrick Swayze in "Roadhouse", huh?

"It's either my way or the highway!"

Go ahead and cast your vote for a candidate that has no more chance of winning the election than a snowball stands a chance on the sidewalks of Georgia.


You won't be helping conservative America with the problem child we have in the Oval Office.

 

[Dreamer]

I don't think a 3 party system is what we need. The UK and Canada have been run by the %40 who adhere to nanny statist policies because of theirs.

Well, no, actually, the UK and Canada have been run by the same 0.0001% (the House of Windsor, formerly known as Saxe Coberg-Gothe) for the last 300 years or so.

The "three party system" in the UK has about as much REAL power as the "parties" have here in the US--they are just figureheads, taking orders from their 0.01% Globalist puppetmasters...

 

[sweetnsauer]

Kinda' like Patrick Swayze in "Roadhouse", huh?

"It's either my way or the highway!"

Hey, it's my vote -- and yours is yours! That's what a vote is for (or supposed to be for, at least). :lol:

Go ahead and cast your vote for a candidate that has no more chance of winning the election than a snowball stands a chance on the sidewalks of Georgia.

I beg to differ. In fact, reality begs to differ (no offense) heheh. Your belief that he's not an "electable" or "legitimate" candidate probably comes from the media. It's a well-known fact that the media goes to great lengths to avoid mentioning his name, skewing poll results, not reporting on his wins or anything positive about him, using fabricated data, ad nauseum.

Here is a good example! According to this article, the leaderboard was:

#1) Mitt Romney
#3) John Huntsman
#4) Rick Perry

Oops, did we forget anything!? Read the comments below that article... guess no one cares about that Ron Paul guy, as you can see! heheh... This is a constant thing going on in the media. Whatever "place" Ron Paul comes in for some poll, that number suddenly ceases to exist as far as the media is concerned lol. Here is another rather humorous example of media bias. Again, just one of countless examples of the misrepresentation of data. Every time there were online polls after a GOP debate, guess who won? Ron Paul. Then guess what the media did? Either ignored the poll and swept it under the rug or made a new one, let 20-30 of their buddies vote on it, then tacked it up on the news board. Fox and CNN were actually caught doing the latter. Even Jon Stewart, of all people, has seen right through it and reported it lol. For once he was actually funny! Look:

[video=youtube;Tb5aGgQXhXo]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Tb5aGgQXhXo[/video]

And there are journalists who are at least honest enough to tell the truth:
http://www.deseretnews.com/article/700202400/Evidence-of-a-Ron-Paul-media-bias.html
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/cifamerica/2011/aug/16/ron-paul-media-bias

You won't be helping conservative America with the problem child we have in the Oval Office.

What is "conservative America"? What is "conservatism"? Can you tell me that?

 

[rodbender]

http://dailycaller.com/2012/02/15/m...us-votes-but-wont-release-updated-vote-count/